Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

[hamishspence]

Thank you for posting that excerpt. My primary point is that Goblins are, in fact, "Usually Neutral Evil," and that because of this, the default assumption for their alignment should be Neutral Evil, instead of something else.

The point The Giant was making, I think, was that the default assumption for a first grader goblin's alignment should not be "Neutral Evil".

And in any case, that killing goblins based on a "default assumption" rather than on their actual actions, is abominable.

BoED takes a similar approach- that even evil beings require "just cause" to attack- you can't just attack them "for being evil" on its own if you intend to stay Good for long.

I agree, however it is fairly black and white in the original sourcebooks. I don't know about the expansions, except that horrid 'exalted deeds' thing or something what was it with the demons in love that you had to consider whether you should kill or not.

BoVD's answer was: "Allowing a fiend to exist (let alone helping it in any way) is clearly Evil"

The later Savage Species had (at least in one of the sample "campaign models") a more nuanced view:

With Malice Toward None
(Chaotic/Accepting)
In this campaign model, the prevailing opinion holds that monsters, no matter how foul and evil they may look, are free sentient beings with all the inalienable rights that humans, elves, and every other humanoid species are heir to. The denizens of this campaign are not foolish- they know that many monsters are evil and nefarious. Just the same, they are loath to reject monsters simply because of their origins. The philosophical leaders of this land realize that no medusa or troll really had a choice in how it came into this world, and indeed as oppressed as its upbringing may have been, it is deserving of more sympathy and consideration, not less.

In this world, evil among monsters is largely perceived to be a psychological condition rather than an absolute or genetic one. Most monsters are thought to become creatures of evil or destruction not because of any infernal or diabolic tie, but because of a fear of rejection, loneliness, or some other understandable psychological condition. Even the foulest tanar'ri may in truth be the victim of its own psychoses, and the enlightened people of this world hold out hope that with openness, respect, and even love, the darkest of souls can be redeemed. And who knows? Perhaps they are right.

BoED left it a bit more ambiguous, saying that fiends in general were "best slain, or at least banished, and only a naive fool would try to convert them" but leaving the possibility that naive fools can succeed, open.